The intent and manner of the Advertisement is critical in disparagement cases
Background of the Case:
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) filed a suit against Abbott Laboratories and others (Defendants) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, specifically in its Commercial Division. The case pertains to an alleged disparagement of HUL's product, 'Horlicks Diabetes Plus,' by the Defendants through an advertisement (Impugned Advertisement) for their product, 'Ensure Diabetes Care.' The Impugned Advertisement was circulated on the WhatsApp platform and other channels, showing a female protagonist, dressed as an expert, pushing away the Plaintiff's product in favor of the Defendants'.
Issue of the Case:
The central issue is whether the Impugned Advertisement disparages and denigrates HUL's product, thereby causing harm to its market reputation and goodwill. HUL contends that the advertisement is a deliberate attempt to create a negative impression of its product, which is not permissible under the law.
Contentions of the Parties:
HUL argues that the Impugned Advertisement is a clear case of disparagement as it not only promotes the Defendants' product but also implies that HUL's product is inferior. They allege that despite reaching out to the Defendants to address the issue, no action was taken, leading to the filing of the suit.
The Defendants have not provided their contentions in the provided document excerpts, but it is presumed they would argue the validity and legality of their advertising practices.
Issues Dealt with by the Court:
The court considered the principles of disparagement in advertising, the intent and manner of the Impugned Advertisement, and the potential harm to HUL's product reputation. It also addressed the urgency of granting ad-interim relief without notice to the Defendants to prevent further dissemination of the Impugned Advertisement.
Reason and Final Decision:
The court found that the Impugned Advertisement prima facie disparages HUL's product and that the Defendants' conduct in not responding to HUL's concerns was indicative of a potential for further harm. The court granted interim relief to HUL, including an injunction against the Defendants to prevent further circulation of the Impugned Advertisement and to take steps to recall and delete it. The court also directed the Defendants to issue a communication to recipients that the advertisement was issued in error and to instruct them to delete it.
The court's decision is based on the well-established principles that while advertisers have the freedom to promote their products, they must not disparage or defame competitors' products.
Case Citation:Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Abbott Laboratories: 05.09.2024:Commercial IPR Suit No. 27527 of 2024: Bombay High Court: R.I.Chagla HJ
Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
No comments:
Post a Comment